August 7, 2004
IF A REVOLUTION TAKES PLACE IN WASHINGTON AND CONSERVATIVES CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT, DID IT MAKE A NOISE?:
Selling the Sizzle (DAVID BROOKS, 8/07/04, NY Times)
We've got 43 million people without health insurance. We're relying on energy sources that are politically dangerous and economically unsustainable. Wage growth is not what it should be, and yesterday's jobs numbers suggest that strong economic growth may not be producing strong job growth. Would it be illegal in these circumstances for at least one presidential candidate to propose policies remotely in proportion to the problems that confront us?Apparently so. John Kerry and the Democrats spent their convention talking about broad values like unity and military service and almost no time talking about specific proposals. And if you peek in at a Bush campaign event, it's like a traveling road show of proper emotions. Bush will remind the crowd of the feelings we all experienced on Sept. 11. Then there will be several paragraphs on the importance of loving thy neighbor, and several minutes spent reciting the accomplishments of Term 1.
No offense, but where's the beef?
Let us for the moment set aside the revolutionary accomplishments of the first Bush term--tax cuts; multiple free trade agreements; public school vouchers; HSA's; enhancements to retirement savings accounts; abortion limitations; government funding of religious social services; canceling the ABM treaty and spiking Kyoto and the ICC; etc.; etc.; etc..
Here are just some of the proposals that remain to be enacted once the President has a filibuster-proof Senate: Social Security privatization; comprehensive energy policy; tort reform; tax reform; voucherizing public housing; etc.. Also pending approval, though more problematic because of opposition within his own party: immigration reform and a massive new space program.
Oh, and, in the midst of all this, he's waging a global civilizational war and reforming Islam, while putting more attention, energy, and money into salvaging Africa than any world leader ever and shifting our national security policy from Atlanticism/Realism to a universalist alliance of democracies.
The question isn't "where's the beef?" but what's Mr. Brooks's beef?
Posted by Orrin Judd at August 7, 2004 9:49 AMi'm sorry, but anyone that repeats the BS statements of "43 million Americans without insurance" deserves to lose their column. it doesn't not take much research to realize this number as misleading, since it represents the number of individuals during a 12 month span that at one point did not have insurance. the number of individuals that go an entire 12 month span without insurance is much lower, like high teen-millions.
oh yea, brooks is a hack in the same vein as krugman.
Posted by: poormedicalstudent at August 7, 2004 11:25 AMomg, i just reread what i wrote above, and i must apologize for the flurry of grammatical mistakes. been a long week on the wards.
Posted by: poormedicalstudent at August 7, 2004 11:27 AMMr Brooks' beef is that Bush hasn't been a good little Stupid Party GOPer and spent his time trying to enact Dem proposals he lists in the first paragraph, but instead Bush has the gall to push his own agenda, with some success. As a token conservative, this means Mr.Brooks has to spend too much time at parties hearing his Liberal firends whine and moan about the conniving stupidity of the man, and that's just no fun at all.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 7, 2004 11:59 AM